Can't believe people were stupid enough to vote for him. I guess socialism is cool now?

ROFL. Laughed so hard when I read this. So much proof in this post that what you watch truly affects how you perceive reality. I can't even imagine what religious beliefs you have.

I have no shame in saying that I didn't vote on the other hand. America is screwed with a 2 party system. One is horrendous, the other is bad. But, not for the reasons as posted above, that just makes you look so incredibly ignorant. That said, of the two choices that were sadly presented, this was the better of the two... by such an incredible margin. (Unless you want to go to war over religion I guess) Me? --> Moving out of USA next year if all goes correct. By the age of 20 I already know I no longer want to live here. It's terrible.

Edit: to the poster above. If you think someone who has ended a war that was started in the last president's term, and is doing his best to avoid nuclear meltdown with Pakistan is somehow magically going to flip a table and send us running to war I have no clue what to tell you. Romney on the other hand has openly said he would take stern action if elected. Not sure what news sources you get your information from but I encourage those who feign knowledge on this very important subject to go read independent news sources such as Raw Story, or The Young Turks where you get real information. Don't stop there though, gather the information and then make your own decision. Listening to places like Fox News, MSNBC, or any other media outlet that is dictated by money has BLATANT bias to one side or another. Don't be fooled. Educate yourself.

and sigh, I guess I'll edit #2:
Furthering what I said about believing what certain media sources tell you about certain ideologies being "wrong"... perhaps you should research them yourself. As a philosophy major I often find myself face palming at the things people say in terms of things such as "socialism is bad" "communism is bad" etc. The ideology itself cannot be bad, but rather, the person who enacts it can corrupt it. Like, do yourself a favor and go research what these things are about. Can you literally tell me what would be wrong with a strong government dictating how centralized, equal distribution of goods would be bad? There isn't anything bad about that, yet, we have North Korea. So what you're really meaning to say about these subjects is "I believe this person will enact this in a terrible way." Not "HOLY SHIT SOCIALISM/COMMUNISM RUUUUUUUUUN" -_- It'd be like saying - If everyone had equal access to free medical care it would be terrible. What world do you live in? Have you seen Canada lately?

My response. Huge rant.

Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide

Obama was clearly the worst.

Obama didnt end the war, Bush had a pull out time that was already negotiated before Obama came into office.

You think Obama would somehow be less likely to go to war with Iran? The one who passed the NDAA which allows him to kill any American citizen because he has a thought? Or maybe the idea that he now uses drones to kill people overseas indiscriminately?

Pakistan? Who is bringing up Pakistan?

Obama has also said he would attempt to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons, how would he do that? Who the hell knows, but you cant just criticize Romney without applying the same logic to Obama.

The Young Turks is one of the most pathetic youtube channels out there.

LOL you think the Young Turks isnt dictated by money? Good god.

Every organization has bias. At least Fox News gives the other side of the story. If it wasnt for them, conservatives wouldnt even have a voice on mainstream media.

Socialism and communism are inherently bad because they are destined to fail. They are destined to fail because they dont understand a single shred of economics nor do they understand human nature and that people arent going to work for others without a self-interest incentive like money.

Its always baffles me how people say its always the implementation that fails, not the actual ideology itself.

A central government that has the power to give you everything has the power to take everything from you. An equal distribution of goods requires force, force which would take from the productive and give to the unproductive in the name of some random emotional public good at the expense of individual rights. You would destroy the incentive to work and invest and innovate since nobody will do that if they are just going to have it taken away.

North Korea? I hope to god you dont think that country is somehow good in anyway shape or form.

Free healthcare? Its clear you dont understand a single thing about economics and human nature. But then again you majored in philosophy, and that is generally where one would get such Utopian ideas to start with.

Free healthcare means longer waiting times, lower quality, and rationed care since the government is going to realize very quickly that the costs are too much and will start using more government intervention to control your life in order to reduce costs.

If we dont back Israel iran will get nuclear missles and use them on America and Israel you stupid shit...........Listen to Ahmadinejad's speeches he openly says he wants to wipe the west from the map. He is always going on about how the "Zionist's" in Israel need to be completely destroyed. If we dont stop this crazy fuck its going to be all over for usa and our allies.

The "kill them before they kill us" mentality is what will destroy the earth. Please keep your batshit crazy ideas that one establishment can annihilate the US to yourself please.

I have to agree with him at some point of this. We need to be aggressive with these countries who are arming themselves and say they will nuke us or attack us. I am tired of having a President that will not stand up for his country he so believes in(complete bullshit) but if you want to just sit back and wait for us to get nuked that is your opinion. I want to know how you would deal with this I am sure it will be interesting?

+1 to that brotherman. We have soo many problems to deal with already... God be damned if we go to war with them as well.

Was that for me or the guy above me? I am very tired right now and cannot think straight....

If we dont back Israel iran will get nuclear missles and use them on America and Israel you stupid shit...........Listen to Ahmadinejad's speeches he openly says he wants to wipe the west from the map. He is always going on about how the "Zionist's" in Israel need to be completely destroyed. If we dont stop this crazy fuck its going to be all over for usa and our allies.

The "kill them before they kill us" mentality is what will destroy the earth. Please keep your batshit crazy ideas that one establishment can annihilate the US to yourself please.

I have to agree with him at some point of this. We need to be aggressive with these countries who are arming themselves and say they will nuke us or attack us. I am tired of having a President that will not stand up for his country he so believes in(complete bullshit) but if you want to just sit back and wait for us to get nuked that is your opinion. I want to know how you would deal with this I am sure it will be interesting?

+1 to that brotherman. We have soo many problems to deal with already... God be damned if we go to war with them as well.

Was that for me or the guy above me? I am very tired right now and cannot think straight....

"Any existence deprived of freedom is a kind of death." ~Gen Michel Aoun

If you think having the government deciding how the country ran is a good idea then you should go to another country with less freedoms than America I think you will like it there. You can do whatever they tell you to do and you will love it. While your doing that I will enjoy the freedoms of this Country. Also my opinion is if you did not vote then I do not think you should have a say in what goes on in this country. But hey that is why we have these freedoms. And you say you are an intelligent person I think you are a bit ignorant yourself. But again my opinion. Oh and by the way any media outlet is backed up by money and political bs...so please do not act like you found some magical media outlet that is neutral, that is funny. But I have met lots of people from other countries and have told me they liked Communism and Socialism and they said it was great not how it is portrayed in most media. So I can agree with you about people researching. I am going to get off my soap box for now.

I am planning to move out of the US to Japan next year as I prefaced. I didn't make any claim without already taking into consideration most of what was replied here. I also prefaced researching and making your own conclusions on media. I simply stated that independent media has less bias. I think that'd be hard to argue against xD

And again, I don't endorse modern, enacted communism but the ideology itself is not something that can be "morally wrong". I mean come on, it's practically social contract theory; a theory, not an action. People make packs, establish what freedoms they'd like to have(which you're saying they can't do, or is limited? O.o?), establish who enforces them(often suggested government) and then live happily ever after. Sounds like America with more centralized power, ohh so bad.. Your baseline assumption is that having something like this enacted limits freedoms. This is only true in, as I just said, modern day examples; of which, arguably don't even hold to the ideology or theory themselves. Simply because there is "no good example" of them does not mean the ideas are "wrong" in themselves. Arguing about what Socialism calls for in its logical approach to a morally or ethical society is different than simply enacting it being wrong. Basically people are shooting down a strawman -> logical fallacy.

I don't think I ever claimed myself to be intelligent; but rather, others just need to take a step back and look at the logic! :D

edit:
Holy shit sorry but uh superluccix
"Every organization has bias. At least Fox News gives the other side of the story. If it wasnt for them, conservatives wouldnt even have a voice on mainstream media."

"Any existence deprived of freedom is a kind of death." ~Gen Michel Aoun

If you think having the government deciding how the country ran is a good idea then you should go to another country with less freedoms than America I think you will like it there. You can do whatever they tell you to do and you will love it. While your doing that I will enjoy the freedoms of this Country. Also my opinion is if you did not vote then I do not think you should have a say in what goes on in this country. But hey that is why we have these freedoms. And you say you are an intelligent person I think you are a bit ignorant yourself. But again my opinion. Oh and by the way any media outlet is backed up by money and political bs...so please do not act like you found some magical media outlet that is neutral, that is funny. But I have met lots of people from other countries and have told me they liked Communism and Socialism and they said it was great not how it is portrayed in most media. So I can agree with you about people researching. I am going to get off my soap box for now.

I am planning to move out of the US to Japan next year as I prefaced. I didn't make any claim without already taking into consideration most of what was replied here. I also prefaced researching and making your own conclusions on media. I simply stated that independent media has less bias. I think that'd be hard to argue against xD

And again, I don't endorse modern, enacted communism but the ideology itself is not something that can be "morally wrong". I mean come on, it's practically social contract theory; a theory, not an action. People make packs, establish what freedoms they'd like to have(which you're saying they can't do, or is limited? O.o?), establish who enforces them(often suggested government) and then live happily ever after. Sounds like America with more centralized power, ohh so bad.. Your baseline assumption is that having something like this enacted limits freedoms. This is only true in, as I just said, modern day examples; of which, arguably don't even hold to the ideology or theory themselves. Simply because there is "no good example" of them does not mean the ideas are "wrong" in themselves. Arguing about what Socialism calls for in its logical approach to a morally or ethical society is different than simply enacting it being wrong. Basically people are shooting down a strawman -> logical fallacy.

I don't think I ever claimed myself to be intelligent; but rather, others just need to take a step back and look at the logic! :D

edit:
Holy shit sorry but uh superluccix
"Every organization has bias. At least Fox News gives the other side of the story. If it wasnt for them, conservatives wouldnt even have a voice on mainstream media."

Sorry, I cannot help people like you.

I dont need your help. Though if you would like to give 1 coherent argument that would certainly help you.

Seriously how can you disagree that Fox gives the other side of the story, whether you agree with it or not, and that without Fox News the tv would be totally dominated by Leftist outlets.

And I notice how you didnt even attempt to refute any of my other points.

"Any existence deprived of freedom is a kind of death." ~Gen Michel Aoun

If you think having the government deciding how the country ran is a good idea then you should go to another country with less freedoms than America I think you will like it there. You can do whatever they tell you to do and you will love it. While your doing that I will enjoy the freedoms of this Country. Also my opinion is if you did not vote then I do not think you should have a say in what goes on in this country. But hey that is why we have these freedoms. And you say you are an intelligent person I think you are a bit ignorant yourself. But again my opinion. Oh and by the way any media outlet is backed up by money and political bs...so please do not act like you found some magical media outlet that is neutral, that is funny. But I have met lots of people from other countries and have told me they liked Communism and Socialism and they said it was great not how it is portrayed in most media. So I can agree with you about people researching. I am going to get off my soap box for now.

I am planning to move out of the US to Japan next year as I prefaced. I didn't make any claim without already taking into consideration most of what was replied here. I also prefaced researching and making your own conclusions on media. I simply stated that independent media has less bias. I think that'd be hard to argue against xD

And again, I don't endorse modern, enacted communism but the ideology itself is not something that can be "morally wrong". I mean come on, it's practically social contract theory; a theory, not an action. People make packs, establish what freedoms they'd like to have(which you're saying they can't do, or is limited? O.o?), establish who enforces them(often suggested government) and then live happily ever after. Sounds like America with more centralized power, ohh so bad.. Your baseline assumption is that having something like this enacted limits freedoms. This is only true in, as I just said, modern day examples; of which, arguably don't even hold to the ideology or theory themselves. Simply because there is "no good example" of them does not mean the ideas are "wrong" in themselves. Arguing about what Socialism calls for in its logical approach to a morally or ethical society is different than simply enacting it being wrong. Basically people are shooting down a strawman -> logical fallacy.

I don't think I ever claimed myself to be intelligent; but rather, others just need to take a step back and look at the logic! :D

edit:
Holy shit sorry but uh superluccix
"Every organization has bias. At least Fox News gives the other side of the story. If it wasnt for them, conservatives wouldnt even have a voice on mainstream media."

Sorry, I cannot help people like you.

So you took all that time to just explain that each country governs/rules in its own way. *gives applaud* Now I would like to point out again...that if they are not as biased as the other media outlets...hahahahahahaha....o geez you are a funny guy. Yeah I watch Fox News, I also watch MSNBC and all the other media outlets, because having such a narrow view as yours or anyone else that just gets their info from one place is bound to make a comment like that. So before you go all philosophical and try to explain yourself again, which you go through to much detail by the way. I like the break down as it were, but to detailed. Please get your info from more than one source, that is all I am saying be more well rounded. I am tired of talking about this now...any comment/reply you make after this I will not bother with. Because we both have different opinions and different ideals, and that is ok. Just one more quote I like this one.

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. ~Voltaire

"Any existence deprived of freedom is a kind of death." ~Gen Michel Aoun

If you think having the government deciding how the country ran is a good idea then you should go to another country with less freedoms than America I think you will like it there. You can do whatever they tell you to do and you will love it. While your doing that I will enjoy the freedoms of this Country. Also my opinion is if you did not vote then I do not think you should have a say in what goes on in this country. But hey that is why we have these freedoms. And you say you are an intelligent person I think you are a bit ignorant yourself. But again my opinion. Oh and by the way any media outlet is backed up by money and political bs...so please do not act like you found some magical media outlet that is neutral, that is funny. But I have met lots of people from other countries and have told me they liked Communism and Socialism and they said it was great not how it is portrayed in most media. So I can agree with you about people researching. I am going to get off my soap box for now.

I am planning to move out of the US to Japan next year as I prefaced. I didn't make any claim without already taking into consideration most of what was replied here. I also prefaced researching and making your own conclusions on media. I simply stated that independent media has less bias. I think that'd be hard to argue against xD

And again, I don't endorse modern, enacted communism but the ideology itself is not something that can be "morally wrong". I mean come on, it's practically social contract theory; a theory, not an action. People make packs, establish what freedoms they'd like to have(which you're saying they can't do, or is limited? O.o?), establish who enforces them(often suggested government) and then live happily ever after. Sounds like America with more centralized power, ohh so bad.. Your baseline assumption is that having something like this enacted limits freedoms. This is only true in, as I just said, modern day examples; of which, arguably don't even hold to the ideology or theory themselves. Simply because there is "no good example" of them does not mean the ideas are "wrong" in themselves. Arguing about what Socialism calls for in its logical approach to a morally or ethical society is different than simply enacting it being wrong. Basically people are shooting down a strawman -> logical fallacy.

I don't think I ever claimed myself to be intelligent; but rather, others just need to take a step back and look at the logic! :D

edit:
Holy shit sorry but uh superluccix
"Every organization has bias. At least Fox News gives the other side of the story. If it wasnt for them, conservatives wouldnt even have a voice on mainstream media."

Sorry, I cannot help people like you.

I dont need your help. Though if you would like to give 1 coherent argument that would certainly help you.

Seriously how can you disagree that Fox gives the other side of the story, whether you agree with it or not, and that without Fox News the tv would be totally dominated by Leftist outlets.

And I notice how you didnt even attempt to refute any of my other points.

Ok man, here I'll give you one very short argument against the baseline assumption half of your claims relied upon. First, I'll preface this by saying, I study philosophy because I value CRITICAL thinking on subjects. I like to learn about why people think about certain things the way they do, how it can be perceived in a certain way, and why certain ideas may, in fact, be better than others. Let alone, how to refute things such as what you submitted with no clue of what you're actually implying, or so I'm led to believe. I have no utopian ideology, so uh? O.o so with that said, I'll go on to explain your premises what I think you're implying, and how it can easily be refuted. The "choice" of accepting my rebuttal is up to you, but I think anything that refutes the logic provided is hard to find, or comprehensible.

So your premise is
1. Certain establishments or ideologies are destined to fail due to how they are structured.
2. Human nature dictates how this structure is enacted
3. Human Nature is founded on self interest
Conclusion: We can never have something like social contract theory or socialism because, in every sense of the theory, it would compete against psychological egotism.

Now, first, if you honestly don't know what psychological egoism is, go look it up. Because it is exactly what you're talking about. If you miss even the small implications of this term then it may be hard to understand fully why my counter example proves so affective against what you're submitting. My counter example to what you've provided is:

edit: I added a few words to make that more understandable.
1. Humans are animals
2. Sociable Animals in natural habitat have no social, ethical, or religious laws/mandates/rules that dictate their actions
3. Wolves are able to work as a collective whole without killing each other even when they are starving to death.
Conclusion: Animals, including humans, are able to work in environments as a collective being according to LOGICAL, PHYSICAL evidence that is provided to us by structure of the animal kingdom.

To further my point on the wolves if you don't quite understand it; in a society where a collective being knows that it's well being relies on those around it, to diminish it's chances of survival by destroying what keeps it alive would be illogical - not out of direct well being for itself - but for everyone (this is different than saying a good act is done ultimately for the self - this good act is done for everyone that just so happens to include the agent that is doing it). Thus, you can see how you could easily relate this to supporting something such as the natural laws that dictate human nature directly contrary to what you've provided, or in short, psychological egoism does not apply to all people. And in fact, the theory itself suggests that for it to be the most affective, that not everyone would act in a psychologically egotistical manner. Even though, as I implied, people are not naturally inclined to act that way.

Anyway~ Hope that helps you. In regards to the fox news stuff, I seriously can't help you. I imagine you'll just attempt to argue with everything I say if you honestly, truly believe that fox news provides real news coverage. I'll simply remind you that Fox News is an entertainment industry that is headed by News Corp, which in turn is headed by Rupert Murdoch. :D

to the dude above who posted:
I have no idea what you're talking about. I provided two independent new sources as an example and you're taking it as my only intake of news. I'm not sure you bothered to read what I even wrote? xD
And, I don't take much time to write these. I've had to explain these things many-a times to those who have not talked about them often enough. Only a few minutes on a response! I'm busy writing a philosophy paper xD This is just a good break haha.

"Any existence deprived of freedom is a kind of death." ~Gen Michel Aoun

If you think having the government deciding how the country ran is a good idea then you should go to another country with less freedoms than America I think you will like it there. You can do whatever they tell you to do and you will love it. While your doing that I will enjoy the freedoms of this Country. Also my opinion is if you did not vote then I do not think you should have a say in what goes on in this country. But hey that is why we have these freedoms. And you say you are an intelligent person I think you are a bit ignorant yourself. But again my opinion. Oh and by the way any media outlet is backed up by money and political bs...so please do not act like you found some magical media outlet that is neutral, that is funny. But I have met lots of people from other countries and have told me they liked Communism and Socialism and they said it was great not how it is portrayed in most media. So I can agree with you about people researching. I am going to get off my soap box for now.

I am planning to move out of the US to Japan next year as I prefaced. I didn't make any claim without already taking into consideration most of what was replied here. I also prefaced researching and making your own conclusions on media. I simply stated that independent media has less bias. I think that'd be hard to argue against xD

And again, I don't endorse modern, enacted communism but the ideology itself is not something that can be "morally wrong". I mean come on, it's practically social contract theory; a theory, not an action. People make packs, establish what freedoms they'd like to have(which you're saying they can't do, or is limited? O.o?), establish who enforces them(often suggested government) and then live happily ever after. Sounds like America with more centralized power, ohh so bad.. Your baseline assumption is that having something like this enacted limits freedoms. This is only true in, as I just said, modern day examples; of which, arguably don't even hold to the ideology or theory themselves. Simply because there is "no good example" of them does not mean the ideas are "wrong" in themselves. Arguing about what Socialism calls for in its logical approach to a morally or ethical society is different than simply enacting it being wrong. Basically people are shooting down a strawman -> logical fallacy.

I don't think I ever claimed myself to be intelligent; but rather, others just need to take a step back and look at the logic! :D

edit:
Holy shit sorry but uh superluccix
"Every organization has bias. At least Fox News gives the other side of the story. If it wasnt for them, conservatives wouldnt even have a voice on mainstream media."

Sorry, I cannot help people like you.

I dont need your help. Though if you would like to give 1 coherent argument that would certainly help you.

Seriously how can you disagree that Fox gives the other side of the story, whether you agree with it or not, and that without Fox News the tv would be totally dominated by Leftist outlets.

And I notice how you didnt even attempt to refute any of my other points.

Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide

Ok man, here I'll give you one very short argument against the baseline assumption half of your claims relied upon. First, I'll preface this by saying, I study philosophy because I value CRITICAL thinking on subjects. I like to learn about why people think about certain things the way they do, how it can be perceived in a certain way, and why certain ideas may, in fact, be better than others. Let alone, how to refute things such as what you submitted with no clue of what you're actually implying, or so I'm led to believe. I have no utopian ideology, so uh? O.o so with that said, I'll go on to explain your premises what I think you're implying, and how it can easily be refuted. The "choice" of accepting my rebuttal is up to you, but I think anything that refutes the logic provided is hard to find, or comprehensible.

So your premise is
1. Certain establishments or ideologies are destined to fail due to how they are structured.
2. Human nature dictates how this structure is enacted
3. Human Nature is founded on self interest
Conclusion: We can never have something like social contract theory or socialism because, in every sense of the theory, it would compete against psychological egotism.

Now, first, if you honestly don't know what psychological egoism is, go look it up. Because it is exactly what you're talking about. If you miss even the small implications of this term then it may be hard to understand fully why my counter example proves so affective against what you're submitting. My counter example to what you've provided is:

1. Humans are animals
2. Animals have no social, ethical, or religious laws/mandates/rules that dictate their actions
3. Wolves are able to work as a collective whole without killing each other even when they are starving to death.
Conclusion: Animals, including humans, are able to work in environments as a collective being according to LOGICAL, PHYSICAL evidence that is provided to us by structure of the animal kingdom.

To further my point on the wolves if you don't quite understand it; in a society where a collective being knows that it's well being relies on those around it, to diminish it's chances of survival by destroying what keeps it alive would be illogical - not out of direct well being for itself - but for everyone (this is different than saying a good act is done ultimately for the self - this good act is done for everyone that just so happens to include the agent that is doing it). Thus, you can see how you could easily relate this to supporting something such as the natural laws that dictate human nature directly contrary to what you've provided, or in short, psychological egoism.

Anyway~ Hope that helps you. In regards to the fox news stuff, I seriously can't help you. I imagine you'll just attempt to argue with everything I say if you honestly, truly believe that fox news provides real news coverage. I'll simply remind you that Fox News is an entertainment industry that is headed by News Corp, which in turn is headed by Rupert Murdoch. :D

Now we are talking!

A social contract thery is completely subjective and will inevitably end up as the public good trumping over individual rights. Because whatever the collective says goes. Social contract theories are not Constitutions, therefore they can be changed at any given point in time and have no protections to any individual whatsoever.

Not going to look up the term, since I can get a good idea what of your getting at.

You think that human nature is not the same throughout humans and that if you simply molded people in the right institutions, you could do so. I disagree.

I believe that all human beings are flawed. We are flawed because we all have emotions and our own desires that will gladly trump our logic and reason at any time, therefore having a society being allowed to exist solely based on the nature of man being rational is a flawed system. And since we are flawed we can never hope to achieve perfection and we can never hope to achieve a Utopia. Therefore we ca only ask for the 2nd best thing and the 2nd best thing is to have a society where the most amount of people can succeed and the least amount of people can fail. But does that mean that some people will fail? Of course, because that is human nature. That is life. So we shouldnt be surprised by it.

Now does that mean if we see somebody failing at life we just automatically say screw them? Of course not, Most humans are not so selfish that they will leave a dying man in the streets without calling for help. However there is a world of difference between voluntary help and forced help, and by force I mean government since government is a monopoly on force.

Do I believe in some sort of equality? Yes. But the type of equality that I believe in is completely different from yours.
I believe in equality under the law, where everybody regardless of their race, age, gender or economic status has the same exact rights as everyone else and nobody has any special privileges. That is where we are equal. However after that we are unequal because we all have different values, skills, thoughts, etc. Therefore seeing disparities between different groups is nothing to be concerned about.

Lets take your example about wolves and animals. Humans have a higher functioning brain than wolves, and we have a higher emotional aspect than wolves, therefore we experience more logic, reason and facts than wolves.

Not to mention our circumstances are different.

Also its a logical fallacy of non-sequitur. Just because 2 things share something in common, that does not automatically mean your conclusion that we can all wok together in a logical fashion.

What makes you think that our well being is relied on others? You are assuming that you automatically think that doing things that benefit the collective (Whatever qualifies as benefiting the collective you havent said) is the logical choice instead of ones own self. What evidence is that the case?

I would challenge your argument by saying what if I chose not to do what the collective wants me to do. What would you do then? Would you use force against me? Would you try to reason with me? What if your reasoning failed?

But to your last comment. I could flip your logic right back at you, the Young Turks is an entertainment industry and doesnt report news.

"Any existence deprived of freedom is a kind of death." ~Gen Michel Aoun

If you think having the government deciding how the country ran is a good idea then you should go to another country with less freedoms than America I think you will like it there. You can do whatever they tell you to do and you will love it. While your doing that I will enjoy the freedoms of this Country. Also my opinion is if you did not vote then I do not think you should have a say in what goes on in this country. But hey that is why we have these freedoms. And you say you are an intelligent person I think you are a bit ignorant yourself. But again my opinion. Oh and by the way any media outlet is backed up by money and political bs...so please do not act like you found some magical media outlet that is neutral, that is funny. But I have met lots of people from other countries and have told me they liked Communism and Socialism and they said it was great not how it is portrayed in most media. So I can agree with you about people researching. I am going to get off my soap box for now.

I am planning to move out of the US to Japan next year as I prefaced. I didn't make any claim without already taking into consideration most of what was replied here. I also prefaced researching and making your own conclusions on media. I simply stated that independent media has less bias. I think that'd be hard to argue against xD

And again, I don't endorse modern, enacted communism but the ideology itself is not something that can be "morally wrong". I mean come on, it's practically social contract theory; a theory, not an action. People make packs, establish what freedoms they'd like to have(which you're saying they can't do, or is limited? O.o?), establish who enforces them(often suggested government) and then live happily ever after. Sounds like America with more centralized power, ohh so bad.. Your baseline assumption is that having something like this enacted limits freedoms. This is only true in, as I just said, modern day examples; of which, arguably don't even hold to the ideology or theory themselves. Simply because there is "no good example" of them does not mean the ideas are "wrong" in themselves. Arguing about what Socialism calls for in its logical approach to a morally or ethical society is different than simply enacting it being wrong. Basically people are shooting down a strawman -> logical fallacy.

I don't think I ever claimed myself to be intelligent; but rather, others just need to take a step back and look at the logic! :D

edit:
Holy shit sorry but uh superluccix
"Every organization has bias. At least Fox News gives the other side of the story. If it wasnt for them, conservatives wouldnt even have a voice on mainstream media."

Sorry, I cannot help people like you.

I dont need your help. Though if you would like to give 1 coherent argument that would certainly help you.

Seriously how can you disagree that Fox gives the other side of the story, whether you agree with it or not, and that without Fox News the tv would be totally dominated by Leftist outlets.

And I notice how you didnt even attempt to refute any of my other points.

Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide

Ok man, here I'll give you one very short argument against the baseline assumption half of your claims relied upon. First, I'll preface this by saying, I study philosophy because I value CRITICAL thinking on subjects. I like to learn about why people think about certain things the way they do, how it can be perceived in a certain way, and why certain ideas may, in fact, be better than others. Let alone, how to refute things such as what you submitted with no clue of what you're actually implying, or so I'm led to believe. I have no utopian ideology, so uh? O.o so with that said, I'll go on to explain your premises what I think you're implying, and how it can easily be refuted. The "choice" of accepting my rebuttal is up to you, but I think anything that refutes the logic provided is hard to find, or comprehensible.

So your premise is
1. Certain establishments or ideologies are destined to fail due to how they are structured.
2. Human nature dictates how this structure is enacted
3. Human Nature is founded on self interest
Conclusion: We can never have something like social contract theory or socialism because, in every sense of the theory, it would compete against psychological egotism.

Now, first, if you honestly don't know what psychological egoism is, go look it up. Because it is exactly what you're talking about. If you miss even the small implications of this term then it may be hard to understand fully why my counter example proves so affective against what you're submitting. My counter example to what you've provided is:

1. Humans are animals
2. Animals have no social, ethical, or religious laws/mandates/rules that dictate their actions
3. Wolves are able to work as a collective whole without killing each other even when they are starving to death.
Conclusion: Animals, including humans, are able to work in environments as a collective being according to LOGICAL, PHYSICAL evidence that is provided to us by structure of the animal kingdom.

To further my point on the wolves if you don't quite understand it; in a society where a collective being knows that it's well being relies on those around it, to diminish it's chances of survival by destroying what keeps it alive would be illogical - not out of direct well being for itself - but for everyone (this is different than saying a good act is done ultimately for the self - this good act is done for everyone that just so happens to include the agent that is doing it). Thus, you can see how you could easily relate this to supporting something such as the natural laws that dictate human nature directly contrary to what you've provided, or in short, psychological egoism.

Anyway~ Hope that helps you. In regards to the fox news stuff, I seriously can't help you. I imagine you'll just attempt to argue with everything I say if you honestly, truly believe that fox news provides real news coverage. I'll simply remind you that Fox News is an entertainment industry that is headed by News Corp, which in turn is headed by Rupert Murdoch. :D

Now we are talking!

A social contract thery is completely subjective and will inevitably end up as the public good trumping over individual rights. Because whatever the collective says goes. Social contract theories are not Constitutions, therefore they can be changed at any given point in time and have no protections to any individual whatsoever.

Not going to look up the term, since I can get a good idea what of your getting at.

You think that human nature is not the same throughout humans and that if you simply molded people in the right institutions, you could do so. I disagree.

I believe that all human beings are flawed. We are flawed because we all have emotions and our own desires that will gladly trump our logic and reason at any time, therefore having a society being allowed to exist solely based on the nature of man being rational is a flawed system. And since we are flawed we can never hope to achieve perfection and we can never hope to achieve a Utopia. Therefore we ca only ask for the 2nd best thing and the 2nd best thing is to have a society where the most amount of people can succeed and the least amount of people can fail. But does that mean that some people will fail? Of course, because that is human nature. That is life. So we shouldnt be surprised by it.

Now does that mean if we see somebody failing at life we just automatically say screw them? Of course not, Most humans are not so selfish that they will leave a dying man in the streets without calling for help. However there is a world of difference between voluntary help and forced help, and by force I mean government since government is a monopoly on force.

Do I believe in some sort of equality? Yes. But the type of equality that I believe in is completely different from yours.
I believe in equality under the law, where everybody regardless of their race, age, gender or economic status has the same exact rights as everyone else and nobody has any special privileges. That is where we are equal. However after that we are unequal because we all have different values, skills, thoughts, etc. Therefore seeing disparities between different groups is nothing to be concerned about.

Lets take your example about wolves and animals. Humans have a higher functioning brain than wolves, and we have a higher emotional aspect than wolves, therefore we experience more logic, reason and facts than wolves.

Not to mention our circumstances are different.

Also its a logical fallacy of non-sequitur. Just because 2 things share something in common, that does not automatically mean your conclusion that we can all wok together in a logical fashion.

What makes you think that our well being is relied on others? You are assuming that you automatically think that doing things that benefit the collective (Whatever qualifies as benefiting the collective you havent said) is the logical choice instead of ones own self. What evidence is that the case?

I would challenge your argument by saying what if I chose not to do what the collective wants me to do. What would you do then? Would you use force against me? Would you try to reason with me? What if your reasoning failed?

But to your last comment. I could flip your logic right back at you, the Young Turks is an entertainment industry and doesnt report news.

Uh, I asked you to research the term if you did not know it because it was key in understanding the logistical operation of natural law you were implying. So, uhm, basically 90% of what you typed did not apply to what I was talking about. :/

The point was, if sociable animals are placed in an environment where they benefit most by working together for survival they'll... work together for survival as I submitted by example. Sure, some will work in individualistic ways, but that's a minority as I stated. I mean, that's practically the basis for evolution. If survival increases by working together, it'd be against thousands of years of evidence stating that animals like piranhas, or even predecessors of humans instinctively killed those who lived around them if it decreased their odds of survival. Hell, even more blatantly, look at the evidence we continually find in the indian/amazon of tribes untouched by human civilization that continue to work together when circumstances call for it. Are you seriously trying to refute blatant things such as this? To this point, what I'm trying to say is that: it's quite blatant that these counter examples do exist, and on that notion, a successful society could be built on an ideology if it was incorporate correctly. But again, those who have enacted this like communism to this point in time have all been corrupt so you cannot simply look to history in this regard; however, you shouldn't just stop once you've done that, you need to go a step further.
I mean, here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyd6om8IC4M This is meant as a rebuttal to creationism, but ignoring those points in the video you can easily see the natural inclinations that are mentioned. Pay attention to the wording and try to understand his points on biology that we're seeming to disagree upon - though I've provided examples that are present, and observable today I figure a narrator will help lol.

Again, you misinterpret what I said on News. The difference between TYT and Fox News is that, TYT /provides/ entertainment /while/ reporting - not that they are run by an entertainment agency. Fox News is literally owned by what is named Fox Entertainment Group because it IS an entertainment commodity that /also/ provides "news". Basically, their goals are different. I mentioned all this before.... Just look at who its owned by, and then who runs that. It shouldn't be hard to deduce this when I provided the information for you! :D

Again, this is about presidential campaign lol. Come back to the point. Obama is not a socialist. Even if he was simply"enacting" it isn't "morally wrong" The implications implied do not match the arguments being made. Thus, you should take them with a grain of salt!
And again, in my own opinion, of the two candidates Obama was the better of the two, though neither were substantially better than the other on a macro scale.

I'm fine with him having a second term. I voted for him in 2008, too. The country's survived a lot of harrowing events in its past, and while politics seem more divisive now than ever, it takes time to bounce back from a near economic collapse. To expect it to happen so soon, then predict instant doom if it doesn't, just seems paranoid and short sighted to me. Meanwhile, we had certain Republicans voting against any stimulus measures. But then they were present to happily pose for photo ops with the big checks when the measures passed anyway...as if they wanted to make it seem they supported them all along. I'd have more respect for them if they were at least consistent about it. Such as it is, I can't take what they have to say seriously. I really wish that I could, but taking the standpoint that the worse the country gets, the better they look as an "alternative" to the incumbent is not a respectable mindset for me.

One point regarding Fox News. Aside from the fact they were officially reclassified as "entertainment news" and not a news outlet...

One great example of "the other side of the story" they presented was in the case of so-called "death panels".

The fact: This was to allow patients to speak with their doctor regarding possible end of life care, and bill their private insurance for the cost of the consultation, rather than pay out of pocket. Nothing other than a conversation between a patient and their doctor, in the case they become incapacitated, and incapable of directing their own care.

How do you spin advanced care directives into something sounding malicious?

Cue "the other side of the story": On Fox News, as well as other conservative media outlets, this concept was presented as "death panels" being formed by the government, arbitrarily deciding whether or not to pull the plug on Grandma. Never mind the facts; the phrase "death panels" was repeated so often, certain conservatives believed the lie to be the truth. Of course, insurance companies don't want to pay, so this is the spin they wanted to put out there. This wasn't "the other side of the story", it was a blatant lie, and an appeal to fear-based politics.

Uh, I asked you to research the term if you did not know it because it was key in understanding the logistical operation of natural law you were implying. So, uhm, basically 90% of what you typed did not apply to what I was talking about. :/

The point was, if sociable animals are placed in an environment where they benefit most by working together for survival they'll... work together for survival as I submitted by example. Sure, some will work in individualistic ways, but that's a minority as I stated. I mean, that's practically the basis for evolution. If survival increases by working together, it'd be against thousands of years of evidence stating that animals like piranhas, or even predecessors of humans instinctively killed those who lived around them if it decreased their odds of survival. Hell, even more blatantly, look at the evidence we continually find in the indian/amazon of tribes untouched by human civilization that continue to work together when circumstances call for it. Are you seriously trying to refute blatant things such as this? To this point, what I'm trying to say is that: it's quite blatant that these counter examples do exist, and on that notion, a successful society could be built on an ideology if it was incorporate correctly. But again, those who have enacted this like communism to this point in time have all been corrupt so you cannot simply look to history in this regard; however, you shouldn't just stop once you've done that, you need to go a step further.
I mean, here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyd6om8IC4M This is meant as a rebuttal to creationism, but ignoring those points in the video you can easily see the natural inclinations that are mentioned. Pay attention to the wording and try to understand his points on biology that we're seeming to disagree upon - though I've provided examples that are present, and observable today I figure a narrator will help lol.

Again, you misinterpret what I said on News. The difference between TYT and Fox News is that, TYT /provides/ entertainment /while/ reporting - not that they are run by an entertainment agency. Fox News is literally owned by what is named Fox Entertainment Group because it IS an entertainment commodity that /also/ provides "news". Basically, their goals are different. I mentioned all this before.... Just look at who its owned by, and then who runs that. It shouldn't be hard to deduce this when I provided the information for you! :D

Again, this is about presidential campaign lol. Come back to the point. Obama is not a socialist. Even if he was simply"enacting" it isn't "morally wrong" The implications implied do not match the arguments being made. Thus, you should take them with a grain of salt!
And again, in my own opinion, of the two candidates Obama was the better of the two, though neither were substantially better than the other on a macro scale.

Anyway, I'm off to bed. :)

Response

Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide

"The point was, if sociable animals are placed in an environment where they benefit most by working together for survival they'll... work together for survival as I submitted by example."

All right now tell me how would you create an enviroment where humans benefit most by working together for survival.

You just spouted a nice theory but how in the world would you ever apply it? You arent taking into account human nature int he slightest.

"Sure, some will work in individualistic ways, but that's a minority as I stated. I mean, that's practically the basis for evolution. If survival increases by working together, it'd be against thousands of years of evidence stating that animals like piranhas, or even predecessors of humans instinctively killed those who lived around them if it decreased their odds of survival. "

Once again. You need to qualify your variables. Define individualistic ways compared to collective ways. To what degree does an individualistic way turn into a collective way? And what would make you think a minority of a population is somehow individualistic? I would imagine thats the other way around.

Your entire premise is based on a notion that you automatically know what type of enviroment would be able to do all of the things you say humans would do and so far you have not proven to say anything remotely to what it is.

And why are you constantly comparing humans to these animals? We have so many differences between them in cognitive thought that its almost ridiculous to try and say what works for them could work for us.

" Hell, even more blatantly, look at the evidence we continually find in the indian/amazon of tribes untouched by human civilization that continue to work together when circumstances call for it. Are you seriously trying to refute blatant things such as this? "

Seriously!? You are saying that these tribes, which most likely dont have 1/100 of the standard of living we have here in America is some sort of model for us to emulate? And what are these *circumstances* you know of? Examples? Anything? Am I trying to refute it? It has absolutely NOTHING to do with what im saying in the slightest.

"To this point, what I'm trying to say is that: it's quite blatant that these counter examples do exist, and on that notion, a successful society could be built on an ideology if it was incorporate correctly."

And this pretty sums up the problem with your entire argument. You are saying that only if we all did this and that this system would work.

Well NO SHIT! If we all spoke the same language we wouldnt have language problems anymore. If we all looked the same then we wouldnt be self conscious. If we were all made out of marshmallows we would be fluffy treats of goodness. If everybody agreed with me then nobody would disagree with me

Your argument is a Utopian one, exactly what I said when I first replied to you, and even though you tried to deny it, your logic went right back to it.

" But again, those who have enacted this like communism to this point in time have all been corrupt so you cannot simply look to history in this regard; however, you shouldn't just stop once you've done that, you need to go a step further."

Once again, the reason communism fails is because its a Utopian ideology where basic human nature and common sense would tell you its impossible. Every human has their own set of values, everybody is greedy and wishes to increase their well being, everybody would gladly leech off others if there is no consequence for him to do so.

You fail to take into account human nature because you dont even understand it.

"I mean, here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyd6om8IC4M This is meant as a rebuttal to creationism, but ignoring those points in the video you can easily see the natural inclinations that are mentioned. Pay attention to the wording and try to understand his points on biology that we're seeming to disagree upon - though I've provided examples that are present, and observable today I figure a narrator will help lol."

That video was absolutely pointless. Creationism has nothing to do with anything whatsoever. This is a red herring logical fallacy, having absolutely no relevance to the discussion whatsoever.

And you are still committing the fallacy of non sequitor, just because 2 things may be similar to some degree, that does not automatically lead to a conclusion. This is like saying that cows and pigs both live on the planet earth. Therefore they are the same thing, because they live on the planet earth.

"
Again, you misinterpret what I said on News. The difference between TYT and Fox News is that, TYT /provides/ entertainment /while/ reporting - not that they are run by an entertainment agency. Fox News is literally owned by what is named Fox Entertainment Group because it IS an entertainment commodity that /also/ provides "news". Basically, their goals are different. I mentioned all this before.... Just look at who its owned by, and then who runs that. It shouldn't be hard to deduce this when I provided the information for you! :D"

What the hell.....does somebody owning a particular corporation, show, or whatever you want to call it have anything to do with what is said being true or not? Are they reporting? Yes? Then its a news agency, who gives a flying fuck who owns it. Would Fox News not be entertainment if it was owned by something that didnt have the word entertainment in it?

I mean Jesus Christ guy, you are still using a non sequitor. Just because Fox News is owned by something with the word Entertainment in it, that does not mean that they arent News. Basically a distinction without a difference between TYT and Fox News.

"Again, this is about presidential campaign lol. Come back to the point. Obama is not a socialist. Even if he was simply"enacting" it isn't "morally wrong" The implications implied do not match the arguments being made. Thus, you should take them with a grain of salt!
And again, in my own opinion, of the two candidates Obama was the better of the two, though neither were substantially better than the other on a macro scale. "

Socialism means collective ownership of the means of production. So I guess fascist is a more appropriate term. Since Fascism involves either having a state owned economy of a highly regulated one, and since obama loves government in the market, he is a fascist.

Define what is morally right and morally wrong. I will counter you that it is subjective.

What implications are you implying and what arguments are being made?

Anyways in conclusion. Your entire rant can be summed down to this.

You see a correlation between 2 things and you automatically assume its a causation. You have no idea how human nature works because you say basically "If everybody does X then Y can be done" Well obviously. If I could control everybody on the Earth I could create Paradise. But since reality, common sense, and human nature tells me that wont happen, I dont make those arguments.

I'm fine with him having a second term. I voted for him in 2008, too. The country's survived a lot of harrowing events in its past, and while politics seem more divisive now than ever, it takes time to bounce back from a near economic collapse. To expect it to happen so soon, then predict instant doom if it doesn't, just seems paranoid and short sighted to me. Meanwhile, we had certain Republicans voting against any stimulus measures. But then they were present to happily pose for photo ops with the big checks when the measures passed anyway...as if they wanted to make it seem they supported them all along. I'd have more respect for them if they were at least consistent about it. Such as it is, I can't take what they have to say seriously. I really wish that I could, but taking the standpoint that the worse the country gets, the better they look as an "alternative" to the incumbent is not a respectable mindset for me.

One point regarding Fox News. Aside from the fact they were officially reclassified as "entertainment news" and not a news outlet...

One great example of "the other side of the story" they presented was in the case of so-called "death panels".

The fact: This was to allow patients to speak with their doctor regarding possible end of life care, and bill their private insurance for the cost of the consultation, rather than pay out of pocket. Nothing other than a conversation between a patient and their doctor, in the case they become incapacitated, and incapable of directing their own care.

How do you spin advanced care directives into something sounding malicious?

Cue "the other side of the story": On Fox News, as well as other conservative media outlets, this concept was presented as "death panels" being formed by the government, arbitrarily deciding whether or not to pull the plug on Grandma. Never mind the facts; the phrase "death panels" was repeated so often, certain conservatives believed the lie to be the truth. Of course, insurance companies don't want to pay, so this is the spin they wanted to put out there. This wasn't "the other side of the story", it was a blatant lie, and an appeal to fear-based politics.

" To expect it to happen so soon, then predict instant doom if it doesn't, just seems paranoid and short sighted to me." Nobody expects a recovery to happen in the fastest way possible, its just the people who disagree with what Obama is doing is because they understand that they wont work.

"Meanwhile, we had certain Republicans voting against any stimulus measures." But they got passed anyway since Obama had a complete Dem control in House and Senate right?

" But then they were present to happily pose for photo ops with the big checks when the measures passed anyway...as if they wanted to make it seem they supported them all along. " The majority of Repubs were against the stimulus. Obviously as a Representative, if you are going to have money spent, they would like to bring some back to their state, but they would rather have not spent the money at all.

"One great example of "the other side of the story" they presented was in the case of so-called "death panels".

The fact: This was to allow patients to speak with their doctor regarding possible end of life care, and bill their private insurance for the cost of the consultation, rather than pay out of pocket. Nothing other than a conversation between a patient and their doctor, in the case they become incapacitated, and incapable of directing their own care."

They are death panels. Thegovernment gets to decide who gets the care and who does not. Thats the definition of a death panel.

The government would decide if you could get the care or not, because they have to ration costs. Rationing is essentially a nice coded word for death panels. In a market, you could decide which healthcare plan to get on, instead of the government deciding for you.

"
Cue "the other side of the story": On Fox News, as well as other conservative media outlets, this concept was presented as "death panels" being formed by the government, arbitrarily deciding whether or not to pull the plug on Grandma. Never mind the facts; the phrase "death panels" was repeated so often, certain conservatives believed the lie to be the truth. Of course, insurance companies don't want to pay, so this is the spin they wanted to put out there. This wasn't "the other side of the story", it was a blatant lie, and an appeal to fear-based politics"

Except they were entirely correct. When the government can ration your care and if you disagree you cant not get penalized in some sort of way and freely choose another plan without punishment, that is a death panel.